Christopher
Allen appeals his convictions in two cases, FECR192889 and
FECR196716, following a trial on the minutes of testimony for
two counts of possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver, ongoing criminal conduct, and a drug tax
stamp violation, in violation of Iowa Code sections
124.401(1)(a), 124.401(1)(c), 706A.5, 706A.2, and 453B.12
(2013). Allen claims the district court erred in denying his
motions to suppress and his trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

I.
Background Facts and Proceedings

In
August 2013, police executed a search warrant at Allen's
home in Waterloo, Iowa. During the search, officers found
several rocks of crack cocaine, cash, a digital scale, and
plastic sandwich bags with the corners removed. Officers then
obtained a search warrant to search the apartment of a woman
identified as Allen's girlfriend. In the apartment they
found receipts and tickets documenting trips between the
Waterloo area and Chicago, Illinois and a large amount of
cash. In an interview with police officers, Allen said he
received the cash from a settlement; he also admitted to
selling crack cocaine in Chicago but denied selling it in
Iowa. Based on these and other facts, the State charged Allen
on August 15, 2013, with possession of a controlled substance
with intent to distribute and/or conspiracy to possess a
controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation
of section 124.401(1)(c), and a drug tax stamp violation,
pursuant to section 453B.12.

In
early February 2014, a confidential informant told police
Allen was transporting crack cocaine from Chicago to Waterloo
by bus while concealing the crack cocaine in his pants.
Because Allen owed the confidential informant money for
drugs, the police arranged a controlled transaction between
the confidential informant and Allen, during which Allen paid
fifty dollars to the confidential informant, although no
narcotics were exchanged. The confidential informant also
told the officers Allen was going to Chicago to acquire
additional narcotics. As a result of this information, the
officers obtained a warrant to track the location of
Allen's cell phone, which notified the officers when
Allen travelled back from Chicago to Waterloo by bus on
February 21, 2014. Officers observed Allen disembark the bus
without luggage and enter a vehicle as a passenger.

Another
officer, who had a certified narcotics detection police dog,
was called to conduct a stop of the vehicle. The officer had
been informed of and observed what he believed to be a burned
out taillight on the rear of the vehicle. The officer had
also been informed there was an issue with probable
controlled substances.

After
initiating the stop, the officer made contact with the
vehicle's occupants. Allen, a passenger in the vehicle,
appeared nervous and inquired whether he was in trouble. The
officer obtained the vehicle's occupants' identifying
information, returned to his vehicle, ran their information
through his computer, and discovered the driver was the
registered owner of the vehicle and Allen had previous
narcotics charges.

The
officer asked the owner of the vehicle to exit it. The
officer and the vehicle owner looked at the taillight, and
the vehicle owner explained the lamp was painted over in red,
not burned out. The officer discussed with the vehicle owner
how this made the light virtually impossible to see during
the day.

The
officer asked the vehicle owner if he could search both the
car and the individual's person. The owner agreed.
Nothing was found on the individual's person. The officer
asked Allen to exit the vehicle and asked for consent to
search his person, which Allen gave, although he refused to
spread his legs for the pat down; based on this refusal and
Allen's size, the officer ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.